Possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not confer ownership but protects current possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-4690-C-2021

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

CM-4691-C-2021

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 47 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and the delay of 47 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-1040-2021 (O&M)

The plaintiff No.1 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for grant of declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in exclusive possession in respect of the suit land measuring 02 kanals 04 marlas bearing khewat No. 11/9, Khautoni No. 31, comprising of khasra, numbers 103, as mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 situated in the area of village Allowal, Tehsil Khadur Sahib, Distt. Tarntaran; with a decree of Permanent Injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained forever from interfering into the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiffs over land measuring 02 kanals 04 marlas as fully detailed above forcibly, illegally otherwise than in due course of law; and further restraining the defendant from alienating the said land measuring 02 kanals 04 marlas in any manner whatsoever i.e. by way of sale, mortgage, lease, gift, will and exchange etc., has been partly decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the 'plaintiff No.1'; and the respondent No.1 is the 'defendant'.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 inter alia submits that the in not granting injunction in favour of the appellant, the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the alleged writing dated 11.2.1979 is not an Agreement to Sell and is in fact an unregistered sale deed. The said writing is a forged and fabricated document prepared by the defendant himself and in connivance with the witnesses to grab the property of the plaintiffs. As such, the defendants are not entitled to get benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act .

4. Furthermore, the learned Courts below were also in error in ignoring the revenue record as per which plaintiffs are shown to be in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that as per jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (Ex.P1); demarcation report (Ex.P2/A); and also as per girdawari in the year 2012-13, the suit land is reflected in the name of Gurnam Singh and others. As per Ex.P6 to P9, the alleged writing dated 11.02.1979 is proven to be forged and fabricated. The learned Courts below also failed to take into consideration the medical evidence showing that Gurnam Singh was unable to move around and needed 24 hours caretaker. As such, he was not in a condition to execute the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 11.2.1979. However, all this evidence has been ignored/misconstrued by the Courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and p